eddysnake wrote:Les miserables was excellent, probably best movie I've seen this year

I liked it. There were some moments of greatness, and some moments where it just wasn't doing much for me. It was just a bit too uneven overall, but the great moments totally make it worth seeing, and were as good as any scenes in the movies this year. I thought Hugh Jackman did a great job carrying the lead as well.

eddysnake wrote:Les miserables was excellent, probably best movie I've seen this year

I liked it. There were some moments of greatness, and some moments where it just wasn't doing much for me.

what parts were those?

Spoiler:

If I had to nitpick, the one thing I thought they could have done a better job with before he took his life, was showing how truly emotionally devastated Javert had become with the thoughts of Valjean being this lawbreaking criminal but also showed such kindness toward him. they also didn't skimp on the "crack" as his body hit below after jumping.

I'm all over the map with this one. Overall, my gut says 8/10. Really liked the innovative story and plot devices. Loved the subtle and less-than-subtle nods to rote horror and how they applied it in a whole new context. The monsters melange was spectacular. The stoner was excellent. I ding the explanation of The Ancients. That came off a bit underdeveloped. I think the concept works, just needed more backstory. I also ding the gore. Could have used some more imaginative offing of the central cast. S. Weaver's knockers rooled.

I'm all over the map with this one. Overall, my gut says 8/10. Really liked the innovative story and plot devices. Loved the subtle and less-than-subtle nods to rote horror and how they applied it in a whole new context. The monsters melange was spectacular. The stoner was excellent. I ding the explanation of The Ancients. That came off a bit underdeveloped. I think the concept works, just needed more backstory. I also ding the gore. Could have used some more imaginative offing of the central cast. S. Weaver's knockers rooled.

I'm all over the map with this one. Overall, my gut says 8/10. Really liked the innovative story and plot devices. Loved the subtle and less-than-subtle nods to rote horror and how they applied it in a whole new context. The monsters melange was spectacular. The stoner was excellent. I ding the explanation of The Ancients. That came off a bit underdeveloped. I think the concept works, just needed more backstory. I also ding the gore. Could have used some more imaginative offing of the central cast. S. Weaver's knockers rooled.

Pretty much agree. I think a prequel would be a good investment.

That's a great idea. They have an opportunity to succeed where Prometheus phayled.

Descent II is fantastic IMO. I LOVED the first one for it's shear ability to make me feel like I was claustrophobic. The sequel is a great compliment piece. Picks up right where the first leaves off. Some good plot twists. If you liked the first one you will like the second.

the wicked child wrote:it didn't make any sense... Why/How was her life tied to the fate of the ring? I mean EVERYONE's life was tied to the fate of the ring... what made her special? It was a lazy attempt to keep her in the story at best...

Nerd alert...................... and I'm going extra nerdy on this one, having just spent a fair bit of time composing a response that got summarily deleted by accident when I refreshed the browser tab.

Spoiler:

Ultimately, they may have been making a film of Tolkien, but they were still making a film.

When adapting a book for the screen, there are often many changes that have to be made in order to satisfy the requirements of the shortened story telling time. One of the decisions that was made early on was to make Aragorn a much less enthusiastic warrior. In the books, he's hellbent on reclaiming his birthright and marrying his love - Arwen Undómiel. But in the film, to make Aragorn a more compelling and interesting character they decided to give him more of an arc by making him reluctant to claim the throne of Gondor.... despite knowing that failure to do so would mean he would never be allowed to marry Arwen (Elrond's stipulation that Aragorn reclaim the throne of Gondor - by defeating Sauron - is a mirror between Aragorn and Arwen and older story of Beren and Lúthien from "The Silmarilion"). This means that the King we see kneeling before the four Hobbits at his coronation at Minas Tirith in ROTK is a very different man than the Ranger we met at the Prancing Pony in Bree in FOTR.

So.... how to create the motivation for that change? The obvious answer was Arwen. She's Aragorn's primary inspiration in the book, but with the change in his character for the film they needed her to fulfill a slightly different role as muse. In the book, she's amazingly absent from the story in any substantive capacity. She only pops up two or three times, and when she does appear she's just sort of..... there. She makes Aragorn a nice banner, and gives Frodo a fancy necklace (also giving him, as a Ringbearer, her ticket - as it were - to gain passage to the Undying Lands.) Beyond that, both Tolkien (as story teller) and Aragorn seem almost reluctant to speak of her in any detail. The first way the film writers intended to make Arwen a bigger part of the story was by making her Super Elf Warrior Princess, and having her pop up now and then and kill orcs; for example, it was originally she who led the Elf contingent to reinforce Helm's Deep, not Haldir. But just a day or so into filming the sequence, it became excruciatingly obvious that Liv Tyler just not able to act convincingly as a warrior. So they had to resort to Plan B...... which was to rely on the love story in and of itself. Okay, great. But they've just had to scrap the device that gave the easiest explanation why Arwen would be running around with Aragorn, and their alternative is to pursue a story line that requires them to be together. That left them with few options other than exploring a throwaway piece of prose in the books, where it is mentioned that Arwen looks after Aragorn "while he sleeps" when he is away.

As they say on the DVD, you try selling a storyline that hinges on a psychic connection between lovers. But, ultimately, that was the only way they could come up with to give Aragorn the motivation to undergo his new story journey/arc. And making Arwen a more active presence also gives Aragorn a more difficult choice when Éowyn appears in the story.

So Arwen's fate was tied indirectly to the Ring, via Aragorn's pursuit of a destiny that could only be fulfilled with the destruction of the One Ring. But her ultimate role in the films was to provide a touchstone of inspiration to a character whose self-belief was flagging.

the wicked child wrote:it didn't make any sense... Why/How was her life tied to the fate of the ring? I mean EVERYONE's life was tied to the fate of the ring... what made her special? It was a lazy attempt to keep her in the story at best...

Nerd alert...................... and I'm going extra nerdy on this one, having just spent a fair bit of time composing a response that got summarily deleted by accident when I refreshed the browser tab.

Spoiler:

Ultimately, they may have been making a film of Tolkien, but they were still making a film.

When adapting a book for the screen, there are often many changes that have to be made in order to satisfy the requirements of the shortened story telling time. One of the decisions that was made early on was to make Aragorn a much less enthusiastic warrior. In the books, he's hellbent on reclaiming his birthright and marrying his love - Arwen Undómiel. But in the film, to make Aragorn a more compelling and interesting character they decided to give him more of an arc by making him reluctant to claim the throne of Gondor.... despite knowing that failure to do so would mean he would never be allowed to marry Arwen (Elrond's stipulation that Aragorn reclaim the throne of Gondor - by defeating Sauron - is a mirror between Aragorn and Arwen and older story of Beren and Lúthien from "The Silmarilion"). This means that the King we see kneeling before the four Hobbits at his coronation at Minas Tirith in ROTK is a very different man than the Ranger we met at the Prancing Pony in Bree in FOTR.

So.... how to create the motivation for that change? The obvious answer was Arwen. She's Aragorn's primary inspiration in the book, but with the change in his character for the film they needed her to fulfill a slightly different role as muse. In the book, she's amazingly absent from the story in any substantive capacity. She only pops up two or three times, and when she does appear she's just sort of..... there. She makes Aragorn a nice banner, and gives Frodo a fancy necklace (also giving him, as a Ringbearer, her ticket - as it were - to gain passage to the Undying Lands.) Beyond that, both Tolkien (as story teller) and Aragorn seem almost reluctant to speak of her in any detail. The first way the film writers intended to make Arwen a bigger part of the story was by making her Super Elf Warrior Princess, and having her pop up now and then and kill orcs; for example, it was originally she who led the Elf contingent to reinforce Helm's Deep, not Haldir. But just a day or so into filming the sequence, it became excruciatingly obvious that Liv Tyler just not able to act convincingly as a warrior. So they had to resort to Plan B...... which was to rely on the love story in and of itself. Okay, great. But they've just had to scrap the device that gave the easiest explanation why Arwen would be running around with Aragorn, and their alternative is to pursue a story line that requires them to be together. That left them with few options other than exploring a throwaway piece of prose in the books, where it is mentioned that Arwen looks after Aragorn "while he sleeps" when he is away.

As they say on the DVD, you try selling a storyline that hinges on a psychic connection between lovers. But, ultimately, that was the only way they could come up with to give Aragorn the motivation to undergo his new story journey/arc. And making Arwen a more active presence also gives Aragorn a more difficult choice when Éowyn appears in the story.

So Arwen's fate was tied indirectly to the Ring, via Aragorn's pursuit of a destiny that could only be fulfilled with the destruction of the One Ring. But her ultimate role in the films was to provide a touchstone of inspiration to a character whose self-belief was flagging.

that'll do tifosi, that'll do.

unrelated to all this, a 20 second clip popped up for Nicolas Winding Refns "Only God Forgives". not much there, but regardless, I'm excited.

eddysnake wrote:Les miserables was excellent, probably best movie I've seen this year

I liked it. There were some moments of greatness, and some moments where it just wasn't doing much for me.

what parts were those?

Spoiler:

If I had to nitpick, the one thing I thought they could have done a better job with before he took his life, was showing how truly emotionally devastated Javert had become with the thoughts of Valjean being this lawbreaking criminal but also showed such kindness toward him. they also didn't skimp on the "crack" as his body hit below after jumping.

Spoiler:

Yeah, that was definitely one. Crowe obviously has the chops to pull that off too, and it's a pretty integral scene to the plot. Also thought the build-up in Valjean's 'Who Am I' to 24601 was lacking just a bit -- another important part. I thought Eddie Redmayne was good too, miles better than he was in My Week With Marilyn, but I thought some of his songs, particularly with Amanda Seyfried, ran hot and cold (except for 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' and 'A little fall of Rain').

The directorial style was indeed great for making those smaller moments feel both intimate and grand ('I Dreamed a Dream' among many others), and the movie is a triumph in that regard--those scenes are its strongest--but on the flip side I felt like some of the larger moments didn't have the impact they should've ('Do You Hear the People Sing' 'Red and 'Black).

So yeah, those are more minor than major criticisms, but with a long movie those things are magnified more, because pacing is that much more crucial.

Quite happy we had Samantha Barks and not Taylor Swift as Éponine too. She was solid. I didn't know she played the same part in the 25th Anniversary Tour as well.

the wicked child wrote:it didn't make any sense... Why/How was her life tied to the fate of the ring? I mean EVERYONE's life was tied to the fate of the ring... what made her special? It was a lazy attempt to keep her in the story at best...

Nerd alert...................... and I'm going extra nerdy on this one, having just spent a fair bit of time composing a response that got summarily deleted by accident when I refreshed the browser tab.

TLDNR

Spoiler:

j/k :p

I understand all that... but I still don't like it, and feel it was not done well at any rate. You can't just say "Arwen's life is tied to the fate of the ring" and leave it at that as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to invent this story arc, at least flesh it out a bit. I understand to an extent why they made some of the changes they did, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or like them.

eddysnake wrote:Les miserables was excellent, probably best movie I've seen this year

I liked it. There were some moments of greatness, and some moments where it just wasn't doing much for me.

what parts were those?

Spoiler:

If I had to nitpick, the one thing I thought they could have done a better job with before he took his life, was showing how truly emotionally devastated Javert had become with the thoughts of Valjean being this lawbreaking criminal but also showed such kindness toward him. they also didn't skimp on the "crack" as his body hit below after jumping.

Spoiler:

Yeah, that was definitely one. Crowe obviously has the chops to pull that off too, and it's a pretty integral scene to the plot. Also thought the build-up in Valjean's 'Who Am I' to 24601 was lacking just a bit -- another important part. I thought Eddie Redmayne was good too, miles better than he was in My Week With Marilyn, but I thought some of his songs, particularly with Amanda Seyfried, ran hot and cold (except for 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' and 'A little fall of Rain').

The directorial style was indeed great for making those smaller moments feel both intimate and grand ('I Dreamed a Dream' among many others), and the movie is a triumph in that regard--those scenes are its strongest--but on the flip side I felt like some of the larger moments didn't have the impact they should've ('Do You Hear the People Sing' 'Red and 'Black).

So yeah, those are more minor than major criticisms, but with a long movie those things are magnified more, because pacing is that much more crucial.

Quite happy we had Samantha Barks and not Taylor Swift as Éponine too. She was solid. I didn't know she played the same part in the 25th Anniversary Tour as well.

very happy about sans Swift as well, really liked Samantha Barks when I watched the 25th anniv. tour, so that was great.

Spoiler:

Red and Black was actually one of my favorites from the movie. Once some clips starting coming out, I knew Who Am I (my favorite from the stage show) wasn't going to be the power house we are used, and I sort of convinced myself not to be disappointed and go with the film version style if it works and it did for me.

Red and Black was actually one of my favorites from the movie. Once some clips starting coming out, I knew Who Am I (my favorite from the stage show) wasn't going to be the power house we are used, and I sort of convinced myself not to be disappointed and go with the film version style if it works and it did for me.

Ah, see I hadn't seen any of the clips before, so I wasn't able to prepare myself

Spoiler:

I liked Red and Black, but it had the potential to be more, which I guess is what was disappointing. Like I said, hot and cold.

skullman80 wrote:Savages. Went in with low expectations because the reviews were awful, but I quite liked it. Well that is up until the last 10 minutes or so. They couldn't have ended it on the plausible ending, but had to do the crappy tack on semi-happy ending. Ruined the movie for me.

saw this the other night, and it surprised me as well, I liked it up until Stone had to mess with the ending (not surprising).

JP2 the lost world, there is a great movie in there somewhere, it's just too bad that just about everyone including Spielberg mailed it in. Still enjoyed it for what it is, it's been fun watching with the kids and scaring the hell out of them before bed.

Also saw most of The Raid: Redemption, where the hell did this movie come from? So intense!

eddysnake wrote:JP2 the lost world, there is a great movie in there somewhere, it's just too bad that just about everyone including Spielberg mailed it in. Still enjoyed it for what it is, it's been fun watching with the kids and scaring the hell out of them before bed.

Also saw most of The Raid: Redemption, where the hell did this movie come from? So intense!

Spoiler:

I loved the scene with the T-Rex in downtown San Diego or whatever city that was supposed to be